IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design, Can They Be Reconciled Instead?

GroundPounder
post Mar 13 2010, 07:56 AM
Post #41





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



personally, lihop doesn't work for me. the fact that half a dozen of the named terrorists were alive after 9/11 stirs up lots of questions. cd it was, but what kind. i'm not willing to throw away any data regardless of how anomalous it is. the highly elevated tritium levels for example, which were summarily dismissed by many 'experts'. thermite/thermate at a mere 2500 degrees celsius doesn't explain to me the 3 month long hot spots. nist, ntsb and every other alphabet soup agency, bureau, administration is worse than useless.

on another topic, this guy at the link swears there were 9 ft tall aliens he personally witnessed on the space shuttle. of course, the flip side is he believes the moon landing (which i don't, not as presented anyway)

http://www.henrymakow.com/clark_mcclelland.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 14 2010, 02:04 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



How do we explain the different kinds of dogs, or goats or rabbits or cows?
This is not evolution that made them this way, but selective breeding for domestication, by another creature, humans.

Yet, they say that all dogs came from the wolf, and at one time all looked, more or less the same.

If people can do this with other species,
wouldn't we try it on ourselves, too?

History, it's all about who made who.
Nature and evolution are virtually, out of the picture, today.

Though, they have the overriding, ultimate, say in things, still.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 14 2010, 05:34 AM
Post #43





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Groundpounder and All! (including Lunk, who's having a look as I write this)

1. LIHOP, MOHOP - I don't see my 911 scenario as LIHOP. Not even MIHOP. What makes mine different is the active conduct by the perps to rig the CD after getting advance knowledge. As I see it, nether of those two common theories include overt independent conduct by a second set of perps such as rigging a CD.

Let It Happen On Purpose means finding out ahead of time and doing nothing other than not warning.

It seems to me all the Made It Happen On Purpose theories include the concept that the perps took active steps to cause the terrorists to do what they did in their initial. My theory does not include that. I suggest finding out an independent terrorist plot beforehand, doing nothing about it, but taking advantage of what you know by rigging a CD to enhance the result of the initial terrorist plot.

I also believe that the perps monkeyed with the planes by adding remote guidance and/or strengthening them to ensure that they hit their targets. But I keep that out of the scenario because the OCT already includes the planes hitting the buildings, so explaining how they were able to hit the buildings does not involve essential new facts to fit a CD into the OCT.

In any case, my whole spiel about trying to fit a CD into the OCT is not something that restricts my thinking. It's just a device to make it easier for people who are already grounded int he OCT to listen to us. I agree that nothing should be ruled out. We certainly don't have enough information to do that at this point, to say what actually happened and rule out other things, because the people who did whatever it really was are motivated to deny us the information we need to pinpoint it.

2. Tritium Levels - For the same reasons, a nuke-driven CD can't be ruled out ( I know Lunk tends to favor this). I also agree that the presence of the abnormal nuke by products needs to be explained.

But it seems to me that the second set of perps would know beforehand that a nuke device would leave hard to contain, obviously unexplainable and easily detectable traces like high tritium behind afterward. Especially when there was nothing nuclear already in the area to point to as a false source, and you know that safety concerns during the rescues and cleanup would probably bring a lot of sensors into the area.

Conventional CD explosives (including exotic military ones like nano thermites) leave much more subtle traces - look at what Jones had to do to find traces and how lucky he was to get legitimate dust samples. Nor are these residues the type of thing that post-disaster safety sensors and concerns would be geared toward, especially when any type of CD seems so unimaginable in the first place.

Given that I have already said that there was no known nuclear source in the area beforehand, to be consistent I have to posit that some unknown nuclear thing was already there, probably for some legitimate purpose, but maybe for some questionable purpose unrelated to 911. Maybe something in WTC 7 for the NYC Emergency Ops or other government offices in it, such as a second backup emergency power source if the first backup either failed or ran out of fuel.

3. Guy That Saw Aliens - I am sure that we are not the only life in our near celestial neighborhood, let alone the galaxy or whole universe. The numbers, when fed through the Drake Equation, are overwhelmingly in favor of it because it opens millions of possibilities.

But let's say there's a million other planets with life. I think you have to run the Drake Equation backward and reduce that to the number of life forms that: (1) are recognizable to us as life; (2) have intelligence we can relate to; (3) are able to communicate with us; and (4) want to interact with us as well. That's going to eliminate the vast majority of them.

And then the hard part starts. To develop any technology at all intelligent aliens need to have existed (1) continuously; (2) for a long time; (3) in a benign environment they can control. Technology cannot be developed on a planet with a harsh environment that causes interrupting extinctions, or that diverts too much energy into a mere battle for survival. But all that gets you is intelligent life with some technology.

To be as technologically advanced as us, they also have to be as smart as us and have been around as long as us. But if they are to have UFO's, it's not enough for them to be at our level. They have to be smarter than us, around longer than us, or both. But being comparatively more advanced is not enough because we don't even know how to begin to make an interstellar craft. They would have to be not just ahead, but far enough ahead to have good reasons to think they can make a serious attempt at making one.

But our current science says that we are limited to the speed of light and a life span of 85 years on the average. Thus other than a few nearby stars, interstellar travel simply cannot be done in a human lifetime, so for it to be meaningful or useful to us, we would have to do it faster than light, which is impossible. The same would be true of any intelligent aliens using our science. Even if they could figure out a way to travel at nature's speed limit, there would still be no practical reason to build an interstellar craft.

Thus what is really required for there to be UFOs is some planet that we haven't already tossed for other reasons that is populated by aliens that are not constrained by our science and immutable laws of nature. I suppose that's not impossible, but the chances seem vanishingly small. As Enrico Fermi said - "If we have alien visitors, then where are they?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Mar 14 2010, 09:03 AM
Post #44





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



here comes some disjointed stuff.

knowledge. what we think we know and what we really know.

thought experiment: what would be an appropriate comparison between what we really know to what there is to know? grain of sand to mt everest? do we even know that much?

starting to speculate based on some premise (and all it's inherent flaws) can be pretty dangerous. like marie and pierre curie body painting with radium. seems like a quaint thing to do at the time.....

the character 'q' took picard and the enterprise out to meet the borg to show picard that arrogance (hubris) doesn't lead down a happy path.

we don't know that the speed of light is the speed limit in the known universe, let alone the unknown universe. we don't know the byproducts of any/all 4th+ gen nuke/micronukes. we don't know the game of 9/11, anymore than being able to tell the structure of an iceberg by observing it's tip. and why is any of this? because we don't have an adequate and reliable fact gathering and retention mechanism.

everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 16 2010, 02:14 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Mar 14 2010, 06:03 AM) *
here comes some disjointed stuff.

knowledge. what we think we know and what we really know.

thought experiment: what would be an appropriate comparison between what we really know to what there is to know? grain of sand to mt everest? do we even know that much?

starting to speculate based on some premise (and all it's inherent flaws) can be pretty dangerous. like marie and pierre curie body painting with radium. seems like a quaint thing to do at the time.....

the character 'q' took picard and the enterprise out to meet the borg to show picard that arrogance (hubris) doesn't lead down a happy path.

we don't know that the speed of light is the speed limit in the known universe, let alone the unknown universe. we don't know the byproducts of any/all 4th+ gen nuke/micronukes. we don't know the game of 9/11, anymore than being able to tell the structure of an iceberg by observing it's tip. and why is any of this? because we don't have an adequate and reliable fact gathering and retention mechanism.

everybody is entitled to their own opinion, not their own facts.


i think we just about completely understand the shadow of a grain of sand,
shaded upon the side of Everest,
...in the moon light.

but we think it is the actual grain of sand, not just a shadow.

There still must be some dust from the WTC, in every nook and cranny around where the towers stood.
thermite is magnetic.
It should pull out of that dust with a magnet, easy.

The excess tritium in the ground water found after 9/11 under the wtc,
was blamed on the exit signs on the aircraft(?) and certain scopes in guns,
that were melted by the concrete that poured like molten lava(?)

With the huge value of central city properties, it would make sense to have shelf life on all constructions,
and if this is the case, then it would also be wise to plan how to take down a building in the initial design, too.
As this would not be a selling point,
it would probably be kept a secret from most.

i suspect that the twin towers were designed to come down in their own footprints, in their original designs, thermite, tons of it, could have been incorporated safely into the original structures,
even key structural access points and even detonation wiring could be designed and built into place,
covertly from the beginning.

When the time came for the twin's to be demolished,
a whole false flag was scrolled around the entire event,
and it was used to justify an all out attack on everybody,
not just one group of people.

Now, they had to make sure the towers came down, and couldn't just rely on 30 year old technology,
So they reinforced the demolition with fourth generation (this is about evolution vs intelligent design)
low yield nuclear demolitionaries. (nukes designed specifically for building demolition).

using nuclear bombs for building demolition was suggested as a peaceful use, for nuclear weapons,
along with, plowing fields for farmers.

...but, i suppose,
all i really know is that dust gets into every nook and cranny.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
forthetrees
post Mar 16 2010, 04:06 PM
Post #46





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,869



When it comes to Intelligent Design, it helps to follow the money. The money behind the Discovery Institute, the vehicle through which ID was designed and marketed, comes from Howard Ahmanson, Jr.. You have most likely never heard of him. You should learn a bit about him and who he "pals around with".

Search: howard ahmanson diebold intelligent design
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 25 2010, 06:40 PM
Post #47





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE (forthetrees @ Mar 16 2010, 03:06 PM) *
When it comes to Intelligent Design, it helps to follow the money.
. . . . . . . .
Search: howard ahmanson diebold intelligent design


I'm somewhat familiar with him. IMHO, just another guy who is content with nothing but total victory and showing those he doesn't agree with what for, whether it comes to stealing elections or replacing a century and a half of well established evolutionary science with his version.

99% of what the ID'ers say turns to crap when they apply it. That's because they direct it at re-opening Evolutionary questions that are closed because they have conclusive scientific answers, and trying to overturn those answers. They are wasting their effort here.

I've been saying that perhaps 1% of what they say might have some value or validity in connection with answering one of the few unanswered questions in Evolution. They say that humans are somehow special because they have been favored by larger forces. That limited and literal statement seems true in a context that is also limited - the still open Evolutionary puzzle over human brain development.

But I say that statement can be true if the question is answered scientifically within the Evolutionary framework (and I think it will). Humans are special because the pace and magnitude of their brain development out lies normal Evolutionary patterns so it appears we have been favored by something exceptional and perhaps singular in Evolutionary terms. And the larger forces that did that was Evolution combined with some triggering cause from the outside that is scientifically explainable, readily understandable, and perhaps even mundane.

EDIT: Here's a shot at one explanation that is not so mundane. A group of homo sapiens (or several or many groups) eventually happen to dwell in a place or region where they are exposed to natural radiation from deposits in the Earth. This triggers a mutation where brain cells begin to grow exponentially. Because the area has other advantages like ready water, shelter, game or forage, they remain there over many generations. The growing brains and Evolutionary response of a larger skull to hold it are passed on through those generations. This gives this subset of the species a competitive advantage and Evolution gradually weeds out their dumber cohort through natural selection of the superior qualities.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Mar 25 2010, 06:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 26 2010, 10:05 AM
Post #48



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



People, don't look like predators. We are lacking the sharp, retractable, claws and fangs.
Some of our internal organs resemble that of the pig.
Our external shape is more like the ape or monkey.
We know that the majority of people have been treated like livestock,
throughout all known history.

...and "genes" are written into very ancient symbols and writings, from the medical spiraling snakes on the stick, to Genesis, in the bible.

It's like we were "built" from the existing creatures that successfully naturally evolved on our planet, long ago. Perhaps, even millions of years ago.

If this was done, there may be a number of prototypes, similar to us, that have either gone extinct, like the the "hobbit people", or escaped to the wild, like perhaps, the Sasquatch.

We now have the technology today to mix species in a test tube.
What creatures, today, have the best potential for success in future generations on this planet?
Can we advance the slow progress of evolution, for this planet, by building
our own design for a, say, self governing intelligent life form?

Can we put life into a "thing" and really make a creature, that could build a better mouse trap?

Anyhow, all these things could have been thought about at least 100,000 years ago, and possibly, not by us.

If another "being" created us, and had control over the rate of time in areas of space...

Then they could plant a nut, and get a nut tree, almost instantly.

...or make a couple of people, and watch the raise and fall civilizations, in minutes, and that would be countless generations to us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Mar 27 2010, 04:32 AM
Post #49





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Lunk!

I totally agree with the first half of your above post which ends with "Sasquatch". We were "built" from the existing creatures that successfully naturally evolved on our planet, long ago. Perhaps, even millions of years ago.

But that only has to do with our bodies. Our brain development seems to out lie natural evolution because it resulted in 10 times more than was needed for survival and was done in a much shorter time than the usual millions of years pace.

Which leads into the second half of your post, where I think you ask some very good questions about creating a self governing intelligent life form. That seems to call into question the nature of reality itself. The reason why we ask such questions is that our brain development seems to have given us a mental quality unique in all of nature's creatures - sentience. That leads us to ask them, but then really complicates matters because we naturally interpret things in a way that is consistent with our existence (the Anthropic Principle). You correctly recognize that this could be a fallacious approach because it leads us to think that we are the only critters capable of being self-aware, and the further leap that we are the only ones who have ever been, now are, or ever will be.

For example, assume we are in the same room. A cat runs through between us. You see it but I don't. To you the cat was real, while I don't even know it existed, although we were in the same space and time. The conditions are identical for both of us but we have different perceptions of reality. You can tell me you just saw it, but time can't be reversed to make me just have seen it as well. You can remark that you haven't seen any cats run by yet, which puts our minds in harmony but denies your reality. Or You can ask if I saw it too, but asking proves the point. Despite what you saw, there are still two possible realities for me - I did or didn't see, and if I was looking the same place at the same time and still didn't see it, there are two possible realities for each of us.

Reality seems to start in our minds and go out instead of starting with the external things we pull in. Nothing outside anybody's mind is real until their mind processes it as real. So it's like everyone's brain is running its own program that tells the five senses what to project as reality, instead of collecting and bringing in some outside objective reality. You see the cat and I don't when our programs are running differently and we both see the cat when they are running in sync.

Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 28 2010, 05:09 PM
Post #50



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If we, humans, have been domesticating wild animals into farm animalls for all recorded history,
the next level up is to realize that we too, may be a "live stock" domesticated and
extracted from the wild.

As for the cat walking by, the reality is, that a cat walked by, whether you or i, saw it, or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 29 2010, 08:01 AM
Post #51





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Mar 25 2010, 06:32 AM) *
But that only has to do with our bodies. Our brain development seems to out lie natural evolution because it resulted in 10 times more than was needed for survival and was done in a much shorter time than the usual millions of years pace.

Archaeological anthropologists have traced some of the history of humanoid development back millions of years (about 7 million years ATM I think) and once again I entreat you to consult Dawkins on this and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale and starting very much at the beginning with 'The Pilgrimage Begins'.

Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution. Evolution does not proceed at a set pace but rather the pace changes with location and period. Dawkins discusses 'Punctuated Equilibrium' in 'Climbing Mount Improbable' in the chapter 'Message from the Mountain' and at greater length in 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Some confusion has arisen from considering macro-mutations under the same banner because Stephen Jay Gould by favouring some forms of macro-mutation failed to make a clear distinction between rapid-gradualism and true macro-mutation.
QUOTE
You correctly recognize that this could be a fallacious approach because it leads us to think that we are the only critters capable of being self-aware, and the further leap that we are the only ones who have ever been, now are, or ever will be.

I have come around to thinking that other apes are self aware, how else could they work out their place in their societal hierarchy?

Going further, other species also have a sense of hierarchy viz the term 'pecking order' which surely comes from considering avians. I am sure a little more thought would reveal other species with such abilities.

Of course I realise that this is somewhat different from the human ability to grapple with the structure of the earth, the solar system and the universe. How many chickens know the difference between a boson and a fermion let alone why this could be important. If a chicken did consider such a difference the chances are it would not call them bosons and fermions, 'cluck' and '˝cluck' perhaps! whistle.gif
QUOTE
For example, assume we are in the same room. A cat runs through between us. You see it but I don't. To you the cat was real, while I don't even know it existed, although we were in the same space and time. The conditions are identical for both of us but we have different perceptions of reality. You can tell me you just saw it, but time can't be reversed to make me just have seen it as well. You can remark that you haven't seen any cats run by yet, which puts our minds in harmony but denies your reality. Or You can ask if I saw it too, but asking proves the point. Despite what you saw, there are still two possible realities for me - I did or didn't see, and if I was looking the same place at the same time and still didn't see it, there are two possible realities for each of us.

I think your case demonstrates something other than the anthropic principle at work.

We have all experienced, particularly those of us with a spouse, being scolded for not listening to others. Like your seen-unseen cat this is more down to brain overload than any difference in each others reality.

The manner in which our senses work deserves some study here and in particular the fact that eyes and ears are just sensors, sensors which transmit signals to a central computer. This computer has various registers each dedicated to processing signals from particular sensors. The results of this processing are co-ordinated by a central processor which combines the messages to create a 'picture' of the surroundings.

Now at any moment in time some sensors, and their associated registers, will grab the attention of the central processor at the expense of the other sensors. For example if a limb suddenly experiences a high temperature heat source (could diverge down to quantum mechanics here but I forebear) then the part of the brain used to process such stimuli will take precedence. Things within visual or audio range may not register at all.

Now taking this consideration of sensors a stage further it is of value to consider what happens if one sense, say vision fails. This could happen for a number of reasons for example damage to the eye, damage to the transmission system (optic nerve) or damage to the associated register.

Depending on the part afflicted the person could develop the ability to 'see' by hearing. Indeed this often happens blind people have accentuated senses of hearing, or rather ability to process the hearing data and produce information from it which in time becomes knowledge expressed in the ability to echo-locate their way around obstacles.

Thus a person has 'evolved' a new means of using the brain to make sense of their surroundings.

Other species use stimuli not sensibly apparent to us to build up their cognitive picture of their surroundings. Insects with the use of UV light and bats with echo-location for example.

Dawkins does a fine job of explanation in 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.
QUOTE
Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.

This is getting dangerously close to considering a 'skyhook' (a creator).

No. Awareness of reality comes from the evolution of thought as extended by the need to quantify objects, such as counting the cattle owned or bushels of grain to exchange (as a means to assessing value) in order to survive in a complex society. The evolution of such mechanisms over time, coupled with that of the associated linguistic abilities, will drive the evolution of the brain. After all if brains can evolve new powers of sensing in one lifetime then 5 million years is a very, very long time for development.

EDIT: Tpyo

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 29 2010, 08:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 30 2010, 07:34 AM
Post #52



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



i saw a coyote walk across the road in front of me.
It was almost like it wasn't there, so camouflaged,
to its' environment. There were some mountain goats too, same thing,
the horses, nearby were obvious, but the wild goats were like part of a still picture,
fitting so well with the background,
that they were practically invisible, yet, no more than 10 feet off the road.
Domesticated creatures are easy to spot, wild creatures are more "invisible",
probably because they have evolved to their environment.

...and then there is the fashion industry for people,
almost the opposite of camouflage.

Perhaps it's more like evolution vs domestication of species.
Domestication is intelligent design.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 30 2010, 11:34 AM
Post #53





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 28 2010, 10:34 AM) *
...and then there is the fashion industry for people,
almost the opposite of camouflage.

Perhaps it's more like evolution vs domestication of species.

I believe peacocks are fairly keen on fashionable displays and for similar reasons to those humans who like to flaunt their designer garb, or latest new toy, house etc.

It goes like this, 'Look at me and what I can afford to do so I must therefore be well endowed and worth mating with.'

That is another aspect of natural selection.

QUOTE
Domestication is intelligent design.

Not realy. It is breeding for required characteristics but always starting with what is already there.

Intelligent design means to assemble from a selection of already existent, if only as drawings or plans, pieces.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 31 2010, 08:37 AM
Post #54



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Domesticated stock don't usually fair too well, in the wild.
It's the idea of trial and error, in evolution over vast stretches of time, that works so well.
If we actually designed, from the gene up, a life form,
the chances are slim that it could survive the wild, for long.

My genetically modified thorn-less blackberry bush,
isn't doing so well, anymore.
and it didn't have any seed that grew,
and it didn't taste quite the same,
and it looked sort of messy...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 9 2010, 09:38 PM
Post #55



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Following along, with the idea that humans are an ancient, genetically modified, created, and domesticated, livestock, by another life form...

What the heck is the product that humans create, for that farmer?

We aint grown for our meat.
A large percentage of our labor is taken for something...

Power?
Energy?
Thought?
Products?
Any ideas?

...and why do we spend so much of our time,
looking at clocks?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 10 2010, 10:36 AM
Post #56





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 8 2010, 12:38 AM) *
...and why do we spend so much of our time,
looking at clocks?

I don't but cannot answer for you of course.

As for the rest of your post, mind you don't fall off The Yellow Brick Road. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Apr 11 2010, 06:13 AM
Post #57





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Omega!

1.
QUOTE
Archaeological anthropologists have traced some of the history of humanoid development back millions of years (about 7 million years ATM I think) and once again I entreat you to consult Dawkins on this and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale and starting very much at the beginning with 'The Pilgrimage Begins'.


Although not intended as a direct reply, I think this Article in last week's Economist fits in nicely. It's about a newly discovered species of mountain dwelling hominid that had common ancestry with us until a separation that occurred about a million years ago:

http://www.economist.com/science-technolog...ory_id=15767281


2. Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution.

Is there anything from Dawkins specifically on this topic? I've ruminated about whether there was some such extraordinary trigger for human brain development in several posts.


3. I
QUOTE
have come around to thinking that other apes are self aware, how else could they work out their place in their societal hierarchy?


I agree with you that apes and other animals are self aware. My dog sure seems to be. But a few years ago I had an illuminating experience where I thought I saw self-awareness in a wild critter. A raccoon took up residence in a shelter I made for a stereo and old TV up on our roof deck. I found him when I almost stuck my hand in his face (not good) to turn on the stereo. He took over the entire deck in two days, crapping up a storm, chewing everything including the roof shingles, relying on rabies vectoring bite for defense. He had to go, so I bought a large cage trap, put it in the center of the deck, and put some bacon in it. The next morning he was caught. I called City Animal Control to pick him up, take him away and gas him. When they arrived, I went up first to clear the way. The raccoon seemed irritated by his confinement. But when he saw the Animal Control guys some instinct seemed to tell him that they were executioners. Fear pooled and twitched in his eyes while hate bristled the hair on his face as he hissed and growled how much at the nonplussed AC I thought his his eyes looked the same as a person facing death His facial expression was expressing a specific kind of helpless hatred, the same way human faces add nuance to their emotions . What I saw in that raccoon's eyes and face was awareness of his existence making him value his life just as highly as I value mine.


4. My Quote:
QUOTE
Maybe creating a self-aware intelligent life form requires far more than giving it a physical body and some kind of thought processor like a brain. Maybe you also have to create an entire reality for it.

Your Quote to which I am responding:
QUOTE
This is getting dangerously close to considering a 'skyhook' (a creator).


I wasn't clear about the type of life form I was thinking of that might need an entire reality created for it to become a self-aware intelligent life form. I was thinking of some type of robotic machine that is built in a serious attempt to duplicate human intelligence and experience life as we do. But for some reason it fails to work properly without some sort of reality to use as a reference point. The reality would not be something with religious implications, instead something we make to give the robot some kind of ersatz reality or fool it into thinking that now it has one..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 11 2010, 11:27 AM
Post #58





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Apr 9 2010, 08:13 AM) *
2. Within this is the consideration that geophysical events and features can provide a spur to more rapid evolution.

Is there anything from Dawkins specifically on this topic?

Evolution is most certainly driven by geophysical events and this is what started Darwin on his journey towards 'On The Origin...' the variety of species on the Galapagos Islands. Thus this aspect forms an essential thread throughout Dawkins' works and in particular 'The Ancestor's Tale'

If you find that one difficult to get hold of look out for:

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne. Highly recommended.

QUOTE
I've ruminated about whether there was some such extraordinary trigger for human brain development in several posts.

I see it essentially as an increased ability for problem solving. The ability to think laterally in order to overcome obstacles. This a matter of the slow grinding of evolutionary processes.

I think that even now many humans display a poor ability to solve problems, some just have a natural ability for lateral thinking but this may be more down to environmental experience that evolutionary divergence. I dunno! Interesting line of inquiry has just opened up.

QUOTE
I wasn't clear about the type of life form I was thinking of that might need an entire reality created for it to become a self-aware intelligent life form. I was thinking of some type of robotic machine that is built in a serious attempt to duplicate human intelligence and experience life as we do. But for some reason it fails to work properly without some sort of reality to use as a reference point. The reality would not be something with religious implications, instead something we make to give the robot some kind of ersatz reality or fool it into thinking that now it has one..

Of course to display the abilities of any form of life a robot must be capable of self-replication and by extension its replicant must also be capable of replication and so on and so on.

Thus we come down to a question of how did life start? That's the rub. Personally I do not think that we will ever create a fully autonomous robot entity. Although 'ever' is a long time, but then humans are not likely to have a forever. Unless...?

Unless some form of electrodynamical/biological hybrid is developed. Some of course could say such entities are already amongst us and have been for milenia.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 11 2010, 11:45 AM
Post #59



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Waking up in the morning is akin to a computer booting up.

CODE
What am i?
what is my condition?
where am i?
how did i get here?
what must i do today?
what time is it?


Computing, uses transistors.
The first transistors were germanium, then silicon,
the next element in that series, is carbon.
And we are carbon-based lifeforms.

The next generation of computers,
and possibly the smallest,
will probably have carbon-based transistors.

The language, we humans speak, is the code,
that programs our brains.
Artists that drift between two different languages,
like French and English, are cross-coding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Apr 11 2010, 12:21 PM
Post #60





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 20 2010, 01:32 PM) *
Hi Lunk!



Maybe there's an Intelligent Experimenter instead, doing an Intelligent Experiment.

But since he's using trial and error, he obviously doesn't know what the f u c k he's doing. Neither perfect nor omniscient.

SO he sure ain't God!

Evolution is Intelligent Experimentation! SO There!


Hahaha... There are too many "logical falacies" connected with intelligent design and the misunderstood processes of evolution.

The problem arises from the human need to understand the incomprehensible, so we tend to make things fit into the molds we have by "trimming the edges". When we had knowledge the people contained blood, for instance, all ills were traceable to blood disorders. When we had microbes, then all ills became microbially induced on and on.

We believe we have an idea as to what intelligence is, so we begin to attribute many good things to it, and bad things to a lack of it. You should know that neither view is true. Intelligence is merely being able to combine memory and experience to predict a reasonably accurate and possible future, without having to experience things first hand every time. One can read what others have experienced, what others have thought about that experience, and use that information to predict outcomes based upon that material, of future events which have a great deal of similarity. Though we may applie logic to these processes, under study they don't always hold. Some people fare better or worse using the same information in the same ways. That is both illogical and counter intuitive (unintelligent?). Never-the-less, intelligence alone is no magic line to "Utopia".

Logic, on the other hand, gives way all to many times to "logical fallacy". ie. people should not be allowed to ride on elevators because, each person who get on an elevator, reduces it's carrying capacity, reduced carrying capacity is bad, therefore no one should be allowed on. Or, hire more police the number of arrests increases, therefore police cause crime.

If one looks closely at evolution, one will quickly come to understand that it is neither intelligent nor does it follow any design! It is a hapazard collection of what has worked so far, and by expanding from there, into all possible directions, it eventually obtains a new add on. Unfortunately some of these "add ons" do absolutely nothing! They are only there because they were possible and because they didn't interfere or do harm. Life pushes out in all directions, and as it does so, it finds many things that are unacceptable and do harm, things that are acceptable and do nothing, and finally a few things that do some good.

An "intelligent design" for example, would get rid of things that do nothing, because they are useless and it's a waste of resources to carry them along. Evolution does no such thing! "Intelligent design" would work to make things it has already acquired more efficient or more effective, evolution does nothing of the kind. Evolution "took advantage" of a better foot, by "throwing all feet" into the maw of environmental hazard. The enviroment took out the poor quality feet, but how did it do so? Not by what we think of as "natural selection" but rather by "unnatural selection". Where, the "best" design for the foot had to do with the ecology at the time. We'd have had much better working feet, for example, if a fairly modern man had been alive during the age of the dinosaurs. Since at that time a very highly developed and extremely efficient foot would have been required. Modern man evolved in a rather more sedate ecology, with slower and less rapacious, as well as less numerous carnivores. Thus the more moderate environment dispensed with working on the foot. We are left with a foot that is somewhat serviceable, but not the best design. So too it goes with many other parts of the body and it's various organs. And now our intelligence is allowing us to learn ways to interfere with the "natural selection" processes. That which was once "unsurvivable" is survivable today and, therefore, available to be passed on to future generations, instead of being weeded out.


So that what is being called "intelligent design" in evolution, is neither intelligent nor the result of any design. It is merely a haphazard collection of things that have worked so far.
And this is about as short as I can tell the story without filling volumes, but that's what it is.
"Evolution" is just a backwards looking recording of what has happened. To see the truth of it all, one has to be aware of the possibilities as to what didn't happen and the why's and wherefore's of that.

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 09:39 PM